--- about those new, large apartment buildings.
seems as if the leaders in South Orange have convinced the populace that building multi-unit dwellings is the only way to reduce our taxes. It seems to also come with a plan to reduce our services. As far as I can tell, we’ll wind up with overcrowding, more grumpy and perhaps unsafe drivers and no plan to change the structure of the already over-crowded roads to accommodate a denser population. Maybe I’m crazy. Maybe I’m not. Doesn’t bode well for the residents, IMO.
Makes sense. I've heard the sidewalk bump-outs on Maplewood Avenue are based on some of the brick fortresses built on Paris streets back then. Cannons aren't due to be installed until February or so, not sure why that takes so long.
apple44 said:
Makes sense. I've heard the sidewalk bump-outs on Maplewood Avenue are based on some of the brick fortresses built on Paris streets back then. Cannons aren't due to be installed until February or so, not sure why that takes so long.
We're all going down to Ricalton Square for the sing-along.
LOST said:
ml1 said:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Commune
author said:I have no idea what this means
ml1 said:Sort of like the Paris Commune. You are getting warm.
the TC members are elected by the people of Maplewood. Would you prefer that these important issues are decided solely by unelected and unaccountable volunteers?
Follow the yellow brick road and eventually you arrive at Anarcho Syndicalism.
Lovesagoodsale said:
seems as if the leaders in South Orange have convinced the populace that building multi-unit dwellings is the only way to reduce our taxes. It seems to also come with a plan to reduce our services. As far as I can tell, we’ll wind up with overcrowding, more grumpy and perhaps unsafe drivers and no plan to change the structure of the already over-crowded roads to accommodate a denser population. Maybe I’m crazy. Maybe I’m not. Doesn’t bode well for the residents, IMO.
It probably is the only way to reduce our taxes. Got a better idea?
But more important to me (a South Orange homeowner) is that the region desperately needs more housing and we have vacant land near a major transit hub. It's the right thing to do. I have confidence in our elected officials to manage the process and approve projects that are size-appropriate for the area and financially beneficial for the town.
a better idea is to open up discussions and have town hall meetings with actual discussion instead of putting trust in people who aren’t being transparent about their plans so we have to react. A better idea is to open actual lines of communication to and with various stakeholders. A better idea is to comply with the ADA so that all residents can actually make it down the sidewalk alive before we actually add more large apartment complexes to the mix. A better idea is to make SO a hub for NJ independent contractors who don’t want to travel to NYC to do it. Have those shared office space kind of places so that people who have consulting jobs can have corporate type office space they can rent for an afternoon or a few hours rather than depending on this to be only a bedroom community for the people who are being priced out of the NYC. The multi-unit dwellings price existing people out of their homes. I will never understand the idea of putting fantasy residents who may move here ahead of existing residents who wish to stay.
A better idea is to decide whether we need to embrace changing the codes and ordinances to allow homeowners to rent out rooms in their homes to students, etc.
Just because I don’t agree with the direction of things doesn’t mean I need to come up with the solution however. Opening up the conversation and having many people participate is actually the best idea. Being welcoming to those with varying opinions is a better idea. I’m a person with faith but I always believe blind faith is a mistake.
Lovesagoodsale said:
a better idea is to open up discussions and have town hall meetings with actual discussion instead of putting trust in people who aren’t being transparent about their plans so we have to react.
Seems to me that Sheena is massively transparent about development plans for South Orange. Facebook probably has to buy extra server space to make room for her lengthy explanations and background information. Do you attend BOT meetings? Have you been involved in the master plan review? Have you discussed any of your ideas with Sheena? She is one of the most engaged and available elected officials I've ever encountered. You may or may not agree with her, but I don't see how anyone can say she's not transparent.
Formerlyjerseyjack said:
To avoid thread drift. On another thread are comments about the multi-family, high rent buildings that are being put up over town. Who stops these? The town council or the planning board?
How does zoning get changed to eliminate the opportunity for these to proliferate?
This is an aesthetic argument that is entirely subjective, but opponents of high-density housing should recall that many of their neighbors support densification and not see Vic De Luca's support of it as illegitimate.
We aren't bought off by the real estate lobby. We have no conflict of interest. We are well-informed and have consistent arguments. While we may differ in the major reasons to support high-density housing, when it comes down to it, for us the upsides of high-density development outweigh the downsides.
I 100% agree that Sheena is very transparent with frequent Facebook postings that include lengthy explanations as to her thinking on a variety of topics. I very much appreciate that and she strikes me as someone who is so dedicated to the immediate area. My criticism is that she has never (to my knowledge) responded to the very real concerns about development and its impact on traffic and our roads. However, if she has, please let me know.
In my 10 years of living in this area, traffic has increased significantly. Streets like Valley and Springfield and South Orange Avenue have reached their capacity. In an effort to avoid the traffic on these streets, people are now using residential streets to cut through which lowers our quality of life. In many respects I'm not against development. However, Maplewood and South Orange no longer feel like the small towns they once were and now feel very congested. Nevertheless, I know some people on SOMA Lounge actually like that and want us to be more like Montclair.
Runner_Guy said:
Formerlyjerseyjack said:This is an aesthetic argument that is entirely subjective, but opponents of high-density housing should recall that many of their neighbors support densification.
To avoid thread drift. On another thread are comments about the multi-family, high rent buildings that are being put up over town. Who stops these? The town council or the planning board?
How does zoning get changed to eliminate the opportunity for these to proliferate?
We aren't bought off by the real estate lobby. We have no conflict of interest. We are well-informed and have consistent arguments. While we may differ in the major reasons to support high-density housing, when it comes down to it, for us the upsides of high-density development outweigh the downsides.
Unless densification is accompanied by improved/expanded infrastructure to meet the needs of the growth in population that comes with increased density; and includes a cost benefit analysis and a sustainability analysis to show that we can afford the additional costs, both economic and environmental, associated with densification over an extended period of time, it is not going to work effectively in our community. We need to see a coordinated approach to this form of development and I don't see that happening at the present time.
My experience is the unhappiest people in our towns are those who believe the towns no longer feel like "small towns." When exactly were they small towns - in the 1920's?
Our towns are suburbs of New York City. Our train stations have almost always been among the busiest in the state. We're right off major highways such as 78 and the GSP, which were built decades ago. We have major county roads such as S.O. Ave and Springfield Ave. which lead to and from other towns. One town has a university which seems to be healthy in its finances and student demand, resulting in their natural need to house more students and offices off campus. Midtown Direct changed a lot, but that's been over 20 years now.
I agree that perhaps more can be done to help with traffic flow during peak periods, though off hand I can't imagine what that would be. Regarding "shared office space" for independent contractors and freelancers, I think S.O. alone has at least three, with very flexible plans for use. That said, they are private businesses that really have nothing to do with the local government.
Regarding Montclair, my experience is that many people who considered Maplewood or South Orange also looked there, and if they really wanted a larger town like that, they simply would live there.
For people looking for a "small town" experience, SOMa certainly isn't the best choice today, but I think it probably wasn't the best choice 30 years ago either.
small town or not, it’s unwise to build more without creating a safety infrastructure to support it. If a town, be it large or small, doesn’t put safety first it is unwise and perhaps even illegal. Town government is our tool to use for our own ends and safety should be first and foremost. Anybody disagree with that? It seems we are putting the cart before the horse again. May I remind you all about the American with Disabilities Act! It is some of the strongest federal legislation there is. I’d like to see something like a science center in our downtown, for example. It would draw people to the area (especially school students). There could be offsite parking and a trolley or the like. There are many things we could do with our centrally located and easily accessible by public transportation downtown. There are so many ideas but if we don’t put public safety first, we are, at the very least, unwise , not to mention potential liability issues.
Imagine If there’s a horrible accident somewhere (God forbid) and some survivor finds that we have been talking about safety for years without actually doing anything to improve our public safety infrastructure while we expand our population. Seems negligent. I know I wouldn’t want anybody to overlook the importance of safety to lower taxes. Safety first! We all live here.
And many people call for speed bumps -- which reduces public safety (response times are much slower). Plus many of the increases in traffic on local streets has to do with GPS's which help find those shortcuts and I would guess many of those who complain do the same in other towns when looking to avoid traffic.
The hot button issue as Sheena has stated is Affordable Housing. Every town in NJ has to add affordable housing, and how is that paid for without having more apartment buildings? If there is no plan to add the affordable housing units you could wind up with a developer suing the town.
joan_crystal said:
Runner_Guy said:Unless densification is accompanied by improved/expanded infrastructure to meet the needs of the growth in population that comes with increased density; and includes a cost benefit analysis and a sustainability analysis to show that we can afford the additional costs, both economic and environmental, associated with densification over an extended period of time, it is not going to work effectively in our community. We need to see a coordinated approach to this form of development and I don't see that happening at the present time.
Formerlyjerseyjack said:This is an aesthetic argument that is entirely subjective, but opponents of high-density housing should recall that many of their neighbors support densification.
To avoid thread drift. On another thread are comments about the multi-family, high rent buildings that are being put up over town. Who stops these? The town council or the planning board?
How does zoning get changed to eliminate the opportunity for these to proliferate?
We aren't bought off by the real estate lobby. We have no conflict of interest. We are well-informed and have consistent arguments. While we may differ in the major reasons to support high-density housing, when it comes down to it, for us the upsides of high-density development outweigh the downsides.
I'm sure you honestly feel this way about high-density development, but my post was a reminder to critics of high-density development that there are many (also informed) people in SOMA who welcome high-density development and we aren't ignorant or corrupted by the real estate lobby.
My post was a response to @Lovesagoodsale, who said "seems as if the leaders in South Orange have convinced the populace that building multi-unit dwellings is the only way to reduce our taxes," as if the leaders of South Orange had conned the populace into supporting development and all us regular citizens were just followers who believed whatever our elected officials told us to believe.
It was also a response to @yahooyahoo who said about new development in Maplewood "Total conflict of interest, in my humble opinion" as if the planning board and TC people in Maplewood had some kind of financial-political stake in allowing new development and didn't sincerely want it or sincerely believe they were following NJ's zoning laws.
My post was a request for respect for people who support high-density development.
ETA: I'm not saying that we are correct (although I think so), but I am saying that we are also well-informed about town issues and have sincere, disinterested reasons for supporting development.
To indulge an expat here, would someone list some of the locations where the type of development under discussion here has taken place (or is being considered) in the 10 years since we left?
Runner_Guy said:
My post was a request for respect for people who support high-density development.
Maybe it’s like someone said just yesterday: “An exaggeration is not a falsification.”
if anybody thinks I lack respect for anyone and wants to address it rationally, please explain why you believe I lack respect. What I do have respect for is the sanctity of all human lives and our right not to be hit by cars. I have respect for people whose views
are vastly different from mine and also those who agree. I prefer a conversation based on real stuff and it some people feel insulted, that is their prerogative, although it is never my intention to insult anyone. Does anyone have access to data about traffic accidents and fatalities? I do know that multi-unit dwellings may have traffic studies attached to them and it would be interesting to see if all the studies come up with same conclusions and who performs them.
In South Orange, for example, the development at Third and Valley seems to atract a lot of lament after the fact. The best way would be to consider the impact of all these developments on safety and quality of life.
Furthermore, Valley St is sometimes impassible by wheelchair and this is simply not OK. I know able-bodied folks may not always consider this point, and that is why the ADA exists. Making roads impassible to those in wheelchairs will not satisfy the requirement for new housing and presents a huge liability to the towns who develop without adhering to the strict requirements. Class action lawsuits for something as obvious as volations of the ADA could break our towns and I’m sure we all want to avoid that as it is the worst use of our funds, our time and our collective efforts.
It’s important to consider all sides of a discussion, even when we don’t agree with anyone.
In the last 10 years in Maplewood:
Old police station site is now a multifamily apartment building.
Old post office site is now a multi-use (residential/commercial) with multiple apartments.
Several multi-use buildings on east side of Springfield Avenue
Major residential development at the corner of Springfield and Boyden extending on Boyden to the bus garage
Multifamily building on Boyden at the corner of Tuscan across from Boyden School.
Multifamily building on Burnet Avenue adjacent to DeHart Park.
Lovesagoodsale said:
In South Orange, for example, the development at Third and Valley seems to atract a lot of lament after the fact. The best way would be to consider the impact of all these developments on safety and quality of life.
I think that it is fundamentally unfair to discuss issues concerning Third & Valley as relating to VP Collum. That deal was apparently negotiated by someone who was completely incompetent and who apparently rejected any and all offers of assistance. VP Collum is not that person in any way.
Well, the traffic at Sloan & Third is, shall we say, "challenging" at times. The construction in the garage doesn't seem all that great (based on the water dripping in many places), that the loading dock is not actually large enough for trucks to fit so they end up blocking the road, and, in my mind the biggest problem is the poor deal concerning the Rescue Squad. As I understand it, the original deal had Jonathan Rose incorporating a Rescue Squad building into the building. It appears (to me, at least) that the former VP was more interested in creating a monument to him in the form of a grandiose new Rescue Squad building that he negotiated away the space at Third & Valley for an insufficient amount. As a result, the Village ceded a parking lot that could have been developed to the Rescue Squad and kicked in additional dollars for construction (and the Rescue Squad had to engage in a fundraising operation as well). Additionally, developing that space would have made redeveloping the Wells Fargo and adjoining spaces more productive by extending the ground floor retail row.
Lovesagoodsale said:
if anybody thinks I lack respect for anyone and wants to address it rationally, please explain why you believe I lack respect.
I’ll say you definitely lack knowledge and understanding.
Third and Valley is not a terrible buiding. It certainly could have been better. The real trick is that it has encouraged many of us to reguarly attend development committee and other meetings. As new buildings are proposed those of us who are generally in favor of development still speak up and demand that loading docks are thought out, and other things. My personal issue with the building is all of the transformers out front, and in fairness I have to say that the developer tried to get them underground and PSE&G suddenly refused, so it was taken out of their hands.
I am very much a liberal and I worry about our environment. We have to have these dense developments along train lines or all of these people will be commuting by car from further out in the suburbs. Use of mass transit is critical if we are going to reduce the growth of highway traffic.
two words: drunk driving. M
We have more alcohol, more drivers and the same infrastructure with rapidly accelerating growth and zero accountability. It’s a bad recipe for the future no matter how you slice it. If I ruled the world, people who are caught driving drunk once would lose their licenses forever. Unaccountable politicians would be unseated and everything would be accessible on a public platform not associated with Facebook or Google. Because we all deserve transparency without being spied on.
FilmCarp said:
Third and Valley is not a terrible buiding. It certainly could have been better. The real trick is that it has encouraged many of us to reguarly attend development committee and other meetings. As new buildings are proposed those of us who are generally in favor of development still speak up and demand that loading docks are thought out, and other things. My personal issue with the building is all of the transformers out front, and in fairness I have to say that the developer tried to get them underground and PSE&G suddenly refused, so it was taken out of their hands.
I am very much a liberal and I worry about our environment. We have to have these dense developments along train lines or all of these people will be commuting by car from further out in the suburbs. Use of mass transit is critical if we are going to reduce the growth of highway traffic.
+1.
I would welcome buildings taller than four storys too, as long as they are competent architecturally.
Although I think the Gateway and Third & Valley are disappointments, my disappointment comes from their materiality and designs, not their scale.
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
Employment Wanted
Latest Jobs
Employment Wanted
-
May 6, 2024 at 10:11am
-
Experienced Summer Nanny Available: Thursdays & Fridays ;)
May 6, 2024 at 8:56am
-
Brazilian cleaning 973 776 2481
May 5, 2024 at 7:35pm
-
May 5, 2024 at 11:14am
-
May 4, 2024 at 1:08pm
Help Wanted
-
May 3, 2024 at 2:32pm
-
Cat Lovers - become part of our lovely Silver Hound Cat Sitter team
May 3, 2024 at 2:12pm
-
PT Driving mother’s Helper needed
May 1, 2024 at 10:31am
-
May 1, 2024 at 9:10am
-
May 1, 2024 at 9:10am
Lessons/Instruction
Advertisement
There was a time when in the pursuit of "development" on Springfield, he wanted a KFC/Coffee place at the corner of Springfield and Yale. A committed group of area neighbors stopped it. That kind of local action still works... If you don't think they are using good judgement, rise up!
RESIST!
Best Regards,
Ron Carter
Formerly of Yale Street...